Journals / e-Kafkas Eğitim Araştırmaları Dergisi / 2023 / Cilt: 10 Sayı: 1

Material Features That Determine the Activity Preferences of Mathematics Teachers

Pages
18–36
Publication Date
2023-04-30
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Based on the evaluations of the teachers, it was concluded that the predictions about the affordances and constraints of the materials were decisive in the activity selection.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Researchers working on activity-based mathematics teaching suggest that the materials deeply shape the design and implementations.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The analyses yielded five distinct features that accounted for teachers’ selection and preferences of mathematical activities with regard to materials: serving to the mathematical gains, functionality, accessibility, being proficient in use and student familiarity.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Based on the evaluations of the teachers, it was concluded that the predictions about the affordances and constraints of the materials were decisive in the activity selection.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Mathematical activity · material features · teacher preferences

Abstract

Researchers working on activity-based mathematics teaching suggest that the materials deeply shape the design and implementations. Despite this effect, empirical knowledge about how teachers approach the materials in their activity selection, and which features of the materials are decisive in their preferences is quite limited. Hence this study aims to designate material features determinant in teachers’ mathematical activity preferences. This research was designed as a multiple case study and was conducted with three secondary school mathematics teachers. During the data collection process, six consecutive semi-structured interviews were conducted with the participants. While structuring the interview process, multiple activities were prepared with different materials to serve the same gain. The data were analyzed by thematic analysis method. The analyses yielded five distinct features that accounted for teachers’ selection and preferences of mathematical activities with regard to materials: serving to the mathematical gains, functionality, accessibility, being proficient in use and student familiarity. The findings showed that teachers' activity preferences had a complex structure and pointed out that instructional decisions were not only shaped on a pedagogical basis and were not only concerned with students' mathematical development. Based on the evaluations of the teachers, it was concluded that the predictions about the affordances and constraints of the materials were decisive in the activity selection.

🔖

Cite This Article

ÖZBEY, N., ÖZMANTAR, M. F. (2023). Material Features That Determine the Activity Preferences of Mathematics Teachers. e-Kafkas Eğitim Araştırmaları Dergisi, Cilt: 10 Sayı: 1, 18–36. https://ajindex.com/articles/937254

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (12)

  1. Ainley, J., Pratt, D. And Hansen, A. (2006). Connecting engagement and focus in pedagogic task design. British Educational Research Journal, 32(1), 23-38.
  2. Baturo, A., Cooper, T., Doyle, K. And Grant, E. (2007). Using three levels in design of effective teacher-education tasks: The case of promoting conflicts with intuitive understandings in probability. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 10, 251-259.
  3. Bozkurt, A. (2012). Matematik öğretmenlerinin matematiksel etkinlik kavramına dair algıları. Eğitim ve Bilim, 37(166), 101-115.
  4. Bozkurt, A. (2018). Ortaokul 6. Sınıf matematik ders kitabındaki etkinliklerin amaç, öğrenci çalışma biçimi ve uygulanabilirlik yönleriyle değerlendirilmesi. Elektronik Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 17(66), 535-548.
  5. Brown, G. T., &Harris, L. R. (2009). The complexity of teachers’ conceptions of assessment: Tensions between the needs of schools and students. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 16(3), 365-381.
  6. Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among five approaches (2nd ed.). London: Sage Publications. Daniels, H. (2001). Vygotsky ve pedagoji. Routledge. Doyle, W. (1983). Academic work. Review of Educational Research, 53, 159-199.
  7. Doyle, W. (1988). Work in matehematics classes: The context of students‟ thinking during instruction. Educational Psychologist, 23(2), 167-180.
  8. Doyle, W. And Carter, K. (1984). Academic tasks in classrooms. Curriculum Inquiry. 14(2), 129-149.
  9. Drijvers, P.,&Trouche, L. (2008). Fromartifactstoinstruments: A theoretical frame work behind the orchestra metaphor. In G. W. Blume& M. K. Heid (Eds.), Research on technologyandtheteachingandlearning of mathematics: Vol. 2. Casesandperspectives(pp. 363-392).
  10. Charlotte, NC: Information Age. Gürbüz, R. ve Toprak, Z. (2014). Aritmetikten cebire geçişi sağlayacak etkinliklerin tasarlanması, uygulanması ve değerlendirilmesi. Necatibey Eğitim Fakültesi Elektronik Fen ve Matematik Eğitimi Dergisi (NEF-EFMED), 8(1), 178-203.
  11. Güzel, M. (2020). Matematiksel Öğrenme Etkinliklerinin Tasarım Ve Uygulama Niteliğinin Değerlendirilmesi İçin Bir Model Önerisi (Doktora Tezi, Gaziantep Üniversitesi, Gaziantep). Haggarty, L., & Pepin, B. (2002). An investigation of mathematics textbooks and their use in English, French and German classrooms: Who gets an opportunity to learn what?. British educational research journal, 28(4), 567-590.
  12. Hardman, J. (2019). Towards a pedagogical model of teaching with ICTs for mathematics attainment in